Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd_override() earlier.

[Zhang Yanfei]

Hello tejun,

On 08/23/2013 02:31 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:52:09AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
>> I understand that you are concerned about stability of the ACPI stuff,
>> which I think is a valid point, but most of (if not all) of the
>> ACPI-related issues come from ACPI namespace/methods, which is a very
>> different thing.  Please do not mix up those two.  The ACPI
> 
> I have no objection to implementing self-conftained earlyprintk
> support.  If that's all you want to do, please go ahead but do not
> pull in initrd override or ACPICA into it.
> 
>> namespace/methods stuff remains the same and continues to be initialized
>> at very late in the boot sequence.
>>
>> What's making the patchset complicated is acpi_initrd_override(), which
>> is intended for developers and allows overwriting ACPI bits at their own
>> risk.  This feature won't be used by regular users. 
> 
> Yeah, please forget about that in earlyboot.  It doesn't make any
> sense to fiddle with initrd that early during boot.

What do you mean by "earlyboot"? And also in your previous mail, I am also
a little confused by what you said "the very first stage of boot". Does
this mean the stage we are in head_32 or head64.c?

If so, could we just do something just as Yinghai did before, that is, Split
acpi_override into 2 parts: find and copy. And in "earlyboot", we just do
the find, and I think that is less of risk. Or we can just do ACPI override
earlier in setup_arch(), not pulling this process that early during boot?

Thanks

-- 
Thanks.
Zhang Yanfei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/